15

The Dutch Bond Tegen Vloeken (Association Against Profanity) regularly advertises against the use of cursing, swearing, and profanity.

Their 2015/2016 campaign features 5 posters, each stating a claim, supposedly backed by research. I haven't been able to find the research mentioned, so I'm doubting the veracity of their claims.

The claims are (in Dutch, followed by the translation)

Een vloek raakt vooral anderen.
70% van de Nederlanders ervaart vloeken als hinderlijk.

A curse mainly affects others.
70% of all Dutch are bothered by cursing.

The poster with the above claim

En, opgelucht?
73% van de Nederlanders vindt schelden en vloeken door collega’s in functie niet kunnen.

And, relieved?
73% of all Dutch think profanity and swearing by colleagues has no place at work.

The poster with the above claim

Grof is niet grappig.
Gelukkig biedt 70% van de jongeren excuses aan als ze worden aangesproken op grof taalgebruik.

Rude is not funny.
Fortunately, 70% of all young people apologize when they are held accountable for rude language.

The poster with the above claim

Met vloeken breekt er iets.
Voor 61% van de Nederlanders is schelden met 'kanker' pijnlijk.

Something breaks when cursing.
To 61% of all Dutch, cursing with 'cancer' hurts.‡

The poster with the above claim

Voor een vloek bestaat geen firewall.
96% van de jongeren vindt grof taalgebruik regelmatig storend.

There's no firewall for profanity.
96% of all young people are regularly bothered by rude language.

The poster with the above claim

All these claims are sourced (according to the posters) to research done and surveys held by consulting agency Scompany, TNS-NIPO, and the Radboud University.

All sources I could find are either old (the latest profanity monitor (in Dutch) on the site of the Bond Tegen Vloeken is from 2008), or has been advice on how to communicate their message most effectively (by Scompany (in Dutch) and by a lecturer at the Radboud University).
The only relevant research done was a survey held by Scompany, among young people in Utrecht (a major Dutch city), which doesn't seem representative.

So are these claims and these numbers accurate?

‡: Cursing with diseases, both current ones like cancer and historical ones like the plague, is common in the Netherlands.

[btvnpc]: https://www.bondtegenvloeken.nl/nieuwepostercampagne/

SQB
  • 3,339
  • 2
  • 22
  • 48
  • Do you have a reason to doubt the veracity of those numbers? Would you think they are lower or higher in reality? – gerrit Jan 08 '16 at 17:47
  • 1
    As stated in my question, the only materials I could find, by the sources mentioned, didn't support the claims made, which is reason for me to doubt the claims. Also, since of the percentages seem high, which suggests to me that they may have "summarised" surveys in a way that supports their claims. – SQB Jan 08 '16 at 18:50
  • 1
    They have a [Twitter account](https://twitter.com/bondtvloeken) and [Facebook page](https://www.facebook.com/pages/Bond-tegen-vloeken/464773546932912?ref=stream&_fb_noscript=1), as well as an email address (info@) on their site. Perhaps you can try asking for the research? – Martin Tournoij Jan 08 '16 at 20:04
  • @Carpetsmoker yes, I'm going to do so, but other independent sources would be welcome as well. – SQB Jan 09 '16 at 09:23
  • 5
    My skepticism of these claims stems from the wording of the claims. They are highly suggestive of some very dubious surveying or interpretation of results. – Dancrumb Jan 09 '16 at 20:40
  • @Dancrumb that indeed. Also, the high percentages in some of these claims seem just a _bit_ too high _to me_. That's the main reason I'm both skeptical of the claim, but also skeptical of my own skepticism -- the numbers aren't wrong just because I think they are. – SQB Jan 09 '16 at 20:42
  • "Voor 61% van de Nederlanders is schelden met 'kanker' pijnlijk" would be more like "To 61% of all Dutch, cursing with 'cancer' is embarrasing." I don't speak Dutch, but the similarity to the German "peinlich" is pretty obvious. – JRE Jun 03 '16 at 08:31
  • Yeah. It's a cultural thing that doesn't translate well, but basically we tend use 'cancer-' much the same way as english/americans use 'fucking'. Or rather, many dutch people do, as I did until recently a relative died from it. Perspective is fun. =/ – Shadur Jun 03 '16 at 08:42
  • @JRE "Pijnlijk" can mean both "embarassing" and "hurting", "painful" seems the correct translation to me. – SQB Jun 03 '16 at 10:10
  • Embarrasing seems the more likely meaning given the context. In English you would almost certainly say it was emabarassing to hear a particular insult rather than saying it was painful. – JRE Jun 03 '16 at 10:18
  • @JRE The most likely meaning is that people who have lost someone to cancer, are hurt by hearing someone user cancer as a cussword. There are several initiatives in the Netherlands to stop using it as a cussword. – SQB Jun 03 '16 at 10:29
  • Sure seems high, given how often the Dutch curse. But on the other hand it probably depends on the demographic of the study. I'd imagine that for example for elderly people that could be the case, so if you include enough of them in your study, you'll have results skewed against cursing. – vartec Jun 03 '16 at 23:56
  • 2
    If a curse word doesn't bother anyone, is it a curse word? – T. Sar Mar 18 '19 at 10:20
  • 1
    @T.Sar the meaning of words changes over time. Thus a word once used as a curse may not be understood to be so now, and vice versa. Similar between cultures sharing the same language. I may say something I don't intent as a curse, but which someone else interprets to be such. Does that make it a curse or not? The other person may think so, I would not as I try to avoid cursing (the occasional expletive excluded if I stub a toe for example). – jwenting Mar 18 '19 at 11:59
  • 1
    @jwenting That's not the point of my question. What I'm saying is that it is obvious that a curse word bothers a bunch of the population, otherwise it wouldn't be considered a curse word. A word that isn't offensive regarding the local social consensus (Say, "Perkele" in Brazil) will hardly be considered a curse for that given area/country. – T. Sar Mar 18 '19 at 12:18
  • 4
    @jwenting In other words - by _definition_ a curse word bothers a bunch of people. A word that doesn't do so isn't a curse word. A regular word can become offensive because it starts bothering (like "retard" did), and a previously offensive word can become less so as time goes by, like what happened to several variants of the word for "shit" in Brazil. – T. Sar Mar 18 '19 at 12:26
  • 1
    @jwenting So, in the very end, the question presents some sort of tautology - it is asking if a word that is considered offensive by society is considered offensive by society. – T. Sar Mar 18 '19 at 12:28
  • @T.Sar only according to that specific definition of "curse word". – SQB Mar 18 '19 at 12:30
  • @SQB Wikipedia defines "Curse Word" as "Socially Offensive Language". That's the definition I'm going by. – T. Sar Mar 18 '19 at 12:38
  • 1
    @T.Sar one might rephrase the question as "are the words designated curse words by the Bond tegen Vloeken actually considered curse words by the general population", although it's more or less then same thing. – Erik Mar 18 '19 at 14:46
  • @Erik That's also a loaded question as the Dutch tend to liberally use English curse words ("shit", "fuck") but only sparingly use Dutch curse words ("kankerlijer") because they perceive the English ones to be less offensive than the Dutch ones. This leads to some awkward moments when there are native English speakers around. – Eric Mar 25 '19 at 21:55

0 Answers0